Api organisation issues object retrieve

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on permissions, whether the id is a UUID, or what happens for a missing/unseen object (openWorldHint=true suggests non-deterministic results but the description never explains it).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but only because it is a bare restatement of the name — under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to evaluate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, minimal annotations, and an undocumented required parameter leave the description as the only possible explanatory channel — and it supplies nothing. An agent has no basis to know what object shape comes back or how it differs from the many near-identical `*_object_retrieve` siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required `id` parameter, and the description does not mention it at all — no format, no meaning, no example. With one undocumented parameter and zero compensating text, this falls below the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is the tool name verbatim ('api_organisation_issues_object_retrieve'), a tautology that adds no plain-language statement of what is fetched. An agent can infer 'retrieve one organisation issue object' only by parsing the identifier itself, and the sibling set contains both `..._organisation_issues_retrieve` and `..._organisation_issues_object_retrieve`, which the description does nothing to disambiguate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not, or alternative-routing information is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over `ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_list` for enumeration or `..._organisation_issues_retrieve` for a different lookup path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.